This isn't jury nullification which occurs during a criminal trial, and for which US Constitutional double-jeopardy protections mean that no further trial for the same offence may be brought.

This is a grand jury, which has refused to bring an indictment. There is no double-jeopardy protection here. The prosecutor has several options:

- Bring the case directly to a judge.

- File charges with a new grand jury. (Grand juries typically sit for a period of time.)

In this case, however, charges have been dismissed. There are several variants here, one is "dismissed with prejudice", which means that those specific charges cannot be applied again. TFA doesn't note this (or indeed much else of substance in this case), so the presumption is that charges are dismissed without prejudice.

What is notable here is that grand juries almost always vote to indict. This isn't a verdict of "guilty", but rather, a finding of sufficient cause to bring trial. As the saying goes, "a grand jury can indict a ham sandwich",[1] that is, overwhelmingly (apparently 95%+ of the time) a prosecutor easily convinces a grand jury to file charges.

Given that grand jury proceedings are usually secret (there are exceptions), and we have no further insight as to what the basis of this decision was, there's not much inference which can be made, though I'd lean more strongly to weak evidence than any specific anti-Flock backlash, much as I'd prefer to believe the latter.[3][4]

________________________________

Notes:

1. Sol Wachtler: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sol_Wachtler>

2. On grand juries, generally: <https://legalknowledgebase.com/what-does-it-mean-when-a-gran...>

3. On dismissal of charges: <https://andrewalpert.com/blog/what-does-dismissed-with-preju...>

Never did

1984 edition

Because that's how you get a felony criminal case started in Ohio (and most, if not all, states and any federal felony cases).

Felonies go before a grand jury in Ohio. The article talks about damages in excess of $1,000, which probably means it's a felony charge on that basis.

> A friend of mine is in the camera business and was wondering how the hell they're making the money they're making off of local and state government contracts.

The Los Angeles Police Department annual budget is over $2 billion. A couple million a year to flock is a drop in the bucket.

> A friend of mine is in the camera business and was wondering how the hell they're making the money they're making off of local and state government contracts.

The contract awards are public no? Axon et al probably make the majority of their money on service charges for storing, accessing the data rather than on the cameras themselves.

Flock sucks but I think these kind of conspiracies hurt the argument. You can go look at a number of these contracts since they are part of your local city/municipality.

A typical flock agreement is pretty firm that the data is the customers. Some of it might be used for training. There is opt-in to share with other law enforcement but I have not yet seen anything around commercial use.

I don’t think much padding is necessary. It’s a metal pole with a cheap camera and SIM card. They charge $3-5k a year per camera. The only upfront cost is a local contractor to install the camera, they typically have one that covers a very large region. Huge margins with that alone.

It's too late for that. This would have maybe worked 30 years ago, but since the Patriot Act and FISA we have literal secret courts approving >99% of the government's requests for surveillance. The existence of the data is now enough to guarantee its misuse.

Anyone accessing data from this system should have an active case they are assigned to, anything else should be subject to disciplinary action just as with HIPAA. It should have tamper evident audit trails. It should not be on a whim. If emergency access is needed they have to retroactively get reviewed and approved and if it was not in line with any active investigation or assist in an active investigation again it should come under serious scrutiny with actionable consequences.

I agree.

However the agent here with the power is the state and local and federal government. They're just going to do drones next if they can't do sensor masts.

Everyone who authorized this funding needs to be voted out. If we really care the signal is to take away the power of people who decided to use this.

They have the warchest. They’ll buy the politicians. Look how the populist right has failed its primaries so hard.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" - Benjamin Franklin

It's obviously a balance. But if you're asking if say 1,000 lost lives per year is worth it to save the privacy of 350 million people, I would say yes.

Just look at the 10's of thousands of people who die every year so that we have the convenience of driving cars. Not to mention the millions whose health are affected by the air pollution.

People don't think the invasion of their privacy will 1. save lives, and 2. not take lives.

Faith in governments is not only low, people are pretty sure any power governments have will be abused.

The equation is a little bigger than that, basically.

False dichotomy.

weak.

There is a juggernaut of surveillance consuming everything in its path, where laws are skirted to install surveillance instruments and due process might as well not exist. And you're talking about "protecting property" and pulling out your little pen and paper to tell your congressperson "i'd like you to try this instead, please"

I'm sorry, no. You don't necessarily have to be the one taking action in the streets, by all means write your letter, but please don't criticize others and pretend that your approach will get you any further than other peoples approach

Writing a letter to your congressman does nothing.

Self governance means more that picking people to lord over you.